Put Sir Andrew Barron Murray in the 2003-2009 era instead of Federer, how does he do?

How does Muzz fare in this era?

  • He wouldn't win any noteworthy titles

    Votes: 6 6.4%
  • Probably could vulture a Masters or a Slam every now and then

    Votes: 26 27.7%
  • He wins a good share of Big Titles but not quite as many as Federer did

    Votes: 34 36.2%
  • He'd

    Votes: 9 9.6%
  • He'd do even BETTER than Fed

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Undisputed GOAT

    Votes: 9 9.6%

  • Total voters
    94

BauerAlmeida

Professional
There are so many variables that it is very hard to make a reasonable guess.

He'd obviously win considerably less than Federer but he'd probably win more than he did now. Not that much more though. He is extremely consistent but he could easily lose to a variety of players in 2003-2005 like Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Ferrero when these are playing their best. In 2007-2009 Nadal and Djokovic are already there. 2006 would be his best chance, he is a solid favorite at the three non-clay slams. I think he wins Wimbledon and one of the HC in that year alone.
 

Sunny014

Legend
He is not gonna play Djokovic and Federer now. He is gonna be up against players he is better than, and with his consistency in his prime he will put himself in alot of chances to win. I'm favouring Murray here but like I said I don't see him winning like Federer did but he is gonna win his fair share of slams, in the vicinity of 6-8.

Murray wasn't particularly better than anyone as such, he is in the same league of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Stan. Thats why Murray has a losing H2H in best of 5 to even stan .... thats the true murray
 

Sunny014

Legend
There are so many variables that it is very hard to make a reasonable guess.

He'd obviously win considerably less than Federer but he'd probably win more than he did now. Not that much more though. He is extremely consistent but he could easily lose to a variety of players in 2003-2005 like Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Ferrero when these are playing their best. In 2007-2009 Nadal and Djokovic are already there. 2006 would be his best chance, he is a solid favorite at the three non-clay slams. I think he wins Wimbledon and one of the HC in that year alone.
2006 might be Murray's only chance to win slams

Because till 2005 Safin-Agassi-Hewitt-Roddick all would be forces of nature, he won't be winning vs them, he isn't beating Roddick on grass, he isn't beating Safin/Andre at AO, he isn't beating Hewitt at USO, he cannot win the french open either.

The decline of the big 3 (Hewitt-Safin) was what created a somewhat weak 2006 where Federer swept through, so that would be the only opening for Murray to win slams, nd mind you Nadal was already on an uptrend, so the party that starts in 06 for Murray would end in 06 as well, 07 would be Nadal territory.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray wasn't particularly better than anyone as such, he is in the same league of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Stan. Thats why Murray has a losing H2H in best of 5 to even stan .... thats the true murray
Nah murray is a tier above them and that's a fact. All the evidence in the world for it from looking at their careers.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Nah murray is a tier above them and that's a fact. All the evidence in the world for it from looking at their careers.
Tier above them but has a losing H2H in bo5 to stan ? haha

He is having 3 slams for a reason, 1-3 slams is his bandwidth, thats his tier in any era.
 

BGod

Legend
The definitely no would be all French along with:
2003 AO
2003 WMB
2003 USO
2004 WMB
2004 USO
2005 AO
2005 USO
2007 WMB
2008 WMB
2009 AO
2009 WMB
2009 USO

So that's 19 of 28 off the table. Of the remaining 9 he might lose AO 06-08 and 06 USO so his range is 5-9 to me. If he won any of the above I'm calling no like 03 AO or 04 USO he'd likely lose somewhere else as a favourite.

Fed won 15 and could have lost 4 (but also choked 2) and there's no way Murray is more consistent or higher skilled.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Why are we assuming that Agassi wouldn't spank Murray in early-mid 00s ?
Is it a joke ?
Andre was a seasoned Veteran, his game was good enough to stretch Federer to 5 sets
He would mop the floor with Murray
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Tier above them but has a losing H2H in bo5 to stan ? haha

He is having 3 slams for a reason, 1-3 slams is his bandwidth, thats his tier in any era.
So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
 

Sunny014

Legend
So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
Murray might have achieved more than others, but here we are talking of how things would play out if he was in prev gen, consider how murray did not have a high peak level, it is impossible for him to have more slams than those guys, they would all divide slams among themselves equally, that is the only logical conclusion man !
 

tudwell

Legend
So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
In slams specifically, he is. Clearly superior on clay and I would argue better on hard as well – not as consistent, of course, but much more deadly against top opposition. He has 2 titles to Murray's 1. 14 top-10 wins to Murray's 10. 9 top-5 wins to Murray's 4. 3 victories over the world number one to Murray's 1. He seems pretty clearly a cut above when it comes to actually winning the toughest matches. Murray murders him on grass, of course.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Certainly less than TTW experts would have you believe. Murray always had clear, objective weaknesses in his game that are way too often brushed aside. It's not that he lost to the big 3 so often, it's that many of his losses were such routine, one-sided affairs. Let's look at slams:

AO - We don't really know he'd do on rebound ace, it's a different surface. I'd expect him to have a good shot at say 2006-2007 regardless but even those I could still see him losing to a zoning attacking player.

FO - Forget about it.

Wimbledon - He'd have to lock horns with Nadal eventually (against whom he's embarrassing 1-9 in sets at Wimbledon) and despite what TTW would have you believe, Roddick and Hewitt weren't chopped liver on grass either.

USO - Has always been very inconsistent here, has lost against a wide variety of players.

I'd say 3-5 slams overall but who knows. Quite a few variables would come into play, not everybody switched to poly and early 2000s still had some leftover variety in terms of surfaces and playing styles which probably played a factor in tour having very good depth at the time.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
So what? This is no boxing contest. What has Stan done outside those few weeks? You are judged on what you do against other players and tennis as a whole. Stan is nowhere near Murray.
Nowhere near is an exaggeration, they have the same number of slam titles (which is what this thread is about mainly).

Murray has had a more stellar career obviously but Stan was more scary when he was zoning and mentally tougher in bigger matches than Murray.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
Nah murray is a tier above them and that's a fact. All the evidence in the world for it from looking at their careers.
Better in what regard? More longevity or consistency doesn't make you win an individual match. He may be "better" than Safin in many stats because he was more consistent or had a longer time at the top. But you put any Murray against late 2004 early 2005 Safin and he loses.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Nowhere near is an exaggeration, they have the same number of slam titles (which is what this thread is about mainly).

Murray has had a more stellar career obviously but Stan was more scary when he was zoning and mentally tougher in bigger matches than Murray.
How many slam finals does Stan have? He has 4. Sure, he won 3 of them wich is great but at the same time he is no player with the ability of performing for a long period of time where he continously puts himself in chances to win big trophies. How many masters finals does he have anyway? Can't be that many. He can lose to anyone at any point. Just imagine you make this thread but for Wawrinka. Tell me how mich you believe he would be able to outperform the field over a 5 year period.

For me this is key when evaluating a player. That's why I hold Murray higher, cause of how he has the ability of performing year in year out on any surface and puts himself in tail end of big tournaments time and time again. That's why he has such a decorated career in the first place compared to Wawrinka, cause he simply is a better player.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Considering he always made it far and was stopped by the big 3 he would certainly win much more than he did.
03-09 wasn’t as strong as 09-14 and Murray would definitely benefit in this scenario but the last 2 options are wrong he would never win as much as Fed.
I think 03-07 wasn’t that strong overall but nobody does the same nevermind better than Fed in that period. It might of not been that strong but Fed literally didn’t let up and won everything.
 

Sunny014

Legend
How many slam finals does Stan have? He has 4. Sure, he won 3 of them wich is great but at the same time he is no player with the ability of performing for a long period of time where he continously puts himself in chances to win big trophies. How many masters finals does he have anyway? Can't be that many. He can lose to anyone at any point. Just imagine you make this thread but for Wawrinka. Tell me how mich you believe he would be able to outperform the field over a 5 year period.

For me this is key when evaluating a player. That's why I hold Murray higher, cause of how he has the ability of performing year in year out on any surface and puts himself in tail end of big tournaments time and time again. That's why he has such a decorated career in the first place.

Murray can be higher in masters, olympics, slam Qf/semis appearances etc etc

Congrats to him

But that is all useless once he reaches the semis/finals and meet that guy who has a higher peak level than him,

Murray has been a guy with extremely consistent level of play vs mediocre players and fell short regularly vs quality players after semis, thats because his peak level was low.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Better in what regard? More longevity or consistency doesn't make you win an individual match. He may be "better" than Safin in many stats because he was more consistent or had a longer time at the top. But you put any Murray against late 2004 early 2005 Safin and he loses.
So you have like 2 matches for Safin going for you where he played outrageous tennis. But over a 5 year period tell me who is gonna have a better career and make more impact on the field Safin or Murray ? It's an easy choice I think. And in the end, in my view showing who the better player is. Like I said this is no boxing context like Wilder vs Fury.
 

Sunny014

Legend
On a scale of playing gears from 0 to 10 where 10 is the absolute peak level we witnessed in last 20 years (Nadal's 2008 french open can be 10)

This is how the greats of the last 20 years operated ....

01.
Federer IMO is the only Tennis player who regularly/or on most days operates on an avg at 8+ and above with least fluctuations, his highest gear can be 9.8-9.9 touched at Various years between 2004 and 2007.

02. Djokovic operates at 7.5 on an avg, in 1st week he is at 6.5 when he is a little vulnerable, by end of 2nd week he crosses 8.5 and reaches close to 8.8, his highest gear can be 9.8 reached during 2011 Aus Open.

03. Nadal outside clay operates on an avg of 7.0 and his highest gear was 9.0 at 2008 wimbledon & 2009 Aus open........ On clay his avg gear is 9.0, highest is 10.0 at the 2008 French Open and had he been pushed in that tournament then he had a 11th gear as well which we have never seen till date.

04. Safin operates at an avg of 4.5 and his highest gear can be 9.5+ which he attained at the 2000USO and 2005AO. Safin fluctuates a lot between these levels, you never know when he could beat you if in mood. At his best he could be a thorn for even GOATs who are operating at 9+.

05. Murray operates at an avg of 6.0 but his highest gear is only 7.5 (This explains why he reaches semis regularly but surrenders meekly, his ceiling is not high and thats why he is no ATG)

06. Hewitt operates at an avg of 5.5 but his highest gear is 7.5 which is same as Murray, hence they are similar players....

07. Roddick operates at avg of 5.0 but his highest gear is 8.8 which he reached at wimbledon 2009 final

08. Stanimal similar to Safin, has an avg of 5.0 but his highest gear is 8.8 which he reached at Aus open when he thrashed Novak and later took out Nadal in the final.


So kudos to Sir Andrew Barron Murray for having a very consistent level of play which does not dip below 6 but then his top gear is also under 8. :whistle:

Hence his struggles would continue in 2000s as well since semi final opponents and finalist opponents would automatically be operating at a level of 8 or more. This is why Murray has been so impotent vs Fed since Fed's base level itself is higher than Murray's top gear :-D :-D :-D
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Murray can be higher in masters, olympics, slam Qf/semis appearances etc etc

Congrats to him

But that is all useless once he reaches the semis/finals and meet that guy who has a higher peak level than him,

Murray has been a guy with extremely consistent level of play vs mediocre players and fell short regularly vs quality players after semis, thats because his peak level was low.
Murray is better than Stan though. Yes Stan when peaking might be higher than Murray but over 10 matches Murray is the more consistent.
Also helps that Stan matchups well with Djokovic while Murray doesn’t. Djokovic dominating benefited nobody post 2011 more than Stan
 

Sunny014

Legend
Murray is better than Stan though. Yes Stan when peaking might be higher than Murray but over 10 matches Murray is the more consistent.
Also helps that Stan matchups well with Djokovic while Murray doesn’t. Djokovic dominating benefited nobody post 2011 more than Stan
He can better for all he wants but that still isn't giving him more slams because Stan will produce superlative performances in those 2-3 matches that Murray cannot.
So despite being better Murray won't be better in slams tally.

This topic is about slams tally, so peak levels are involved, this is not about who is a more accomplished player.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray can be higher in masters, olympics, slam Qf/semis appearances etc etc

Congrats to him

But that is all useless once he reaches the semis/finals and meet that guy who has a higher peak level than him,

Murray has been a guy with extremely consistent level of play vs mediocre players and fell short regularly vs quality players after semis, thats because his peak level was low.
When Safin or Wawrinka can make 11 slam finals, call me. Then we can have a fair comparison. The thing is, they'd never be good enough to even reach half of that let alone 11. Then we can see how many they can win if they continously have to face Djokovic or Federer in finals. Murray has beaten Djokovic to win 2 of his slams, he has beaten Nadal multiple times, he has beaten Federer. But you don't wanna look at that cause he wasn't hitting insane flashy BH winners.

Just look at Safins career and what he did as a whole and you have your answer to that he in no shape or form belongs in the same league as Murray. He had a few freak performances, congratulations.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
He can better for all he wants but that still isn't giving him more slams because Stan will produce superlative performances in those 2-3 matches that Murray cannot.
So despite being better Murray won't be better in slams tally.

This topic is about slams tally, so peak levels are involved, this is not about who is a more accomplished player.
Yeah but that was my point though. RG15 if Stan plays that well but plays Nadal he still loses. Same as US16 if he plays Fedal(US16 was a awful Djokovic).
 

Sunny014

Legend
When Safin or Wawrinka can make 11 slam finals, call me. Then we can have a fair comparison. The thing is, they'd never be good enough to even reach half of that let alone 11. Then we can see how many they can win if they continously have to face Djokovic or Federer in finals. Murray has beaten Djokovic to win 2 of his slams, he has beaten Nadal multiple times, he has beaten Federer. But you don't wanna look at that cause he wasn't hitting insane flashy BH winners.

Just look at Safins career and what he did as a whole and you have your answer to that he in no shape or form belongs in the same league as Murray. He had a few freak performances, congratulations.

Murray beat your boy 2 times, ohh yes, thats his only achievement!

Murray's win over Nadal at 08USO was also good but then lets face it, Nadal wasn't great on HCs yet.
Murraty's win over an injured Nadal at 2010AO or over an injured Fed in 2013 in Fed's worst year won't give him any credit either

Safin on the other hand has beaten everyone, Sampras, Novak, Federer, Agassi .... he owned them all when they were fit and strong....
 

Sunny014

Legend
Not that much better. You still have Agassi around who would beat him. He would struggle with hewitt and roddick. And once Nadal came on board in 2008 good bye Murray
Exactly

Thats why I said, all of these fellows including Murray would divide slams before Nadal touched top gear.

It would be like 3-4 slams among them all, none of them would defend slams, we would have different winners every year.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray beat your boy 2 times, ohh yes, thats his only achievement!

Murray's win over Nadal at 08USO was also good but then lets face it, Nadal wasn't great on HCs yet.
Murraty's win over an injured Nadal at 2010AO or over an injured Fed in 2013 in Fed's worst year won't give him any credit either

Safin on the other hand has beaten everyone, Sampras, Novak, Federer, Agassi .... he owned them all when they were fit and strong....
Novak 05? KEKW

Safins performances as a whole compared to Murray is a joke. Look at his timeline. If his peak was so freakish why didn't he do it more often?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Novak 05? KEKW

Safins performances as a whole compared to Murray is a joke. Look at his timeline. If his peak was so freakish why didn't he do it more often?
08

Safin beat Novak in 08 after Novak reaching 2 grand slam finals and winning 1 of them as well

So Safin is a legit threat to Novak as well, 2-0 H2H in slams, he would have been an advanced version of wawrinka if they were in same gen
 

tudwell

Legend
In slams specifically, he is. Clearly superior on clay and I would argue better on hard as well – not as consistent, of course, but much more deadly against top opposition. He has 2 titles to Murray's 1. 14 top-10 wins to Murray's 10. 9 top-5 wins to Murray's 4. 3 victories over the world number one to Murray's 1. He seems pretty clearly a cut above when it comes to actually winning the toughest matches. Murray murders him on grass, of course.
Kinda getting off topic, but yeesh, this is actually more lopsided than I thought. For all Murray's consistency at hard court majors, Wawrinka's actually met more top-10 players – 27 to 25. He has a 14-13 (52%) record against them, while Murray's 10-15 (40%). Things lean even more toward Wawrinka's corner if we look at matches against top-5 players – Wawrinka's played 20 matches to Murray's 15, going 9-11 (45%) to Murray's 4-11 (27%). It's not like Wawrinka's record is inflated by a small sample size, or that he had a couple good runs but otherwise lost to players outside the top 10. He's played them more and has a superior win-%.

I think Wawrinka's hard court slam results don't actually do justice to how good he is. Maybe not so much in title count (should he have more than 2?) but definitely in non-winning runs. He so often was good enough to meet and even beat top-10 players, but due to his seeding in his early years (and in the last few) that often happened pretty early on. The gap between him and Murray shouldn't be 2 slam finals to 7.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
08

Safin beat Novak in 08 after Novak reaching 2 grand slam finals and winning 1 of them as well

So Safin is a legit threat to Novak as well, 2-0 H2H in slams, he would have been an advanced version of wawrinka if they were in same gen
Djokovic would make dogs dinner of him in his prime tennis. Guys like Safin/Wawrinka are the real opportunist. Show up once or twice a year, play "goatiest" tennis of their life while their opponent is tired from winning matches 24/7 and having pressure of winning every match they enter 24/7 then escape for the whole year and beat their chest that they beat a great player.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Djokovic would make dogs dinner of him in his prime tennis. Guys like Safin/Wawrinka are the real opportunist. Show up once or twice a year, play "goatiest" tennis of their life while their opponent is tired from winning matches 24/7 and having pressure of winning every match they enter 24/7 then escape for the whole year and beat their chest that they beat a great player.

Sadly Murray could not even be that opportunist, his peak was that bad !

His Wimbledon and USO itself were vs tired/not yet at peak on grass Novak.
His 2016 wimbledon and year end rankings all came at a time when big 3 collapsed and whole of tennis was down with injuries
 

Sunny014

Legend
Safin's feats

Took down Sampras in Slams (twice), including a US Open final in 2000.
Beat Agassi in Slams (twice), including a huge win in 2004.
Beat Kuerten at the FO when Guga was in his prime. And again at the AO the next year (the only time that Kuerten lost before the QF in a Slam that year).
Beat Djokovic in Slams (twice)
Took care of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian (twice) in the Slams. Beat Ferrero at the French.
Beat peak Federer in a non-clay Slam - the only time that Fed lost in a non-clay Slam in 2004-2007.


He is the only man in history to have beaten Sampras+Agassi+Federer+Djokovic all at the same slam (AO) .... Now those are players with a total of 2+4+6+9 = 21 Australian Opens ..... ;) ..... Only King Marat Safin can pull off such feats !!!
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Safin's feats

Took down Sampras in Slams (twice), including a US Open final in 2000.
Beat Agassi in Slams (twice), including a huge win in 2004.
Beat Kuerten at the FO when Guga was in his prime. And again at the AO the next year (the only time that Kuerten lost before the QF in a Slam that year).
Beat Djokovic in Slams (twice)
Took care of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian (twice) in the Slams. Beat Ferrero at the French.
Beat peak Federer in a non-clay Slam - the only time that Fed lost in a non-clay Slam in 2004-2007.


He is the only man in history to have beaten Sampras+Agassi+Federer+Djokovic all at the same slam (AO) .... Now those are players with a total of 2+4+6+9 = 21 Australian Opens ..... ;) ..... Only King Marat Safin can pull off such feats !!!
Safin, at times, was a king but at other times, a clown prince.
Talented, exciting, charismatic and erratic as heck.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Not that much better. You still have Agassi around who would beat him. He would struggle with hewitt and roddick. And once Nadal came on board in 2008 good bye Murray
Lol...oh really? Murray is 6-3 v Roddick in 2006-9, only met Hewitt once in 2006 where he beat him for his 1st ever title, never met Agassi who was old and ready for retirement anyway by the time Murray began to peak. Nadal certainly presented problems but Murray still had his moments against him eg. at 2008 US Open.

The utter lack of knowledge and/or respect for Murray's game by his well-known haters on here never ceases to make me wonder........and laugh!
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Legend
I wish Safin had won 5-6 slams, he certainly deserved to be in a higher tier than he is.

He occasionally being a clown prince with poor work ethic cost him...
He probably earned being in the Hall of Fame just based on the 2000 US Open (especially crushing Sampras in the final) and the 2005 semi (especially outlasting Roger in an amazing semi) alone. He had other good moments, but not what one would expect.
 

Kralingen

Legend
I wish Safin had won 5-6 slams, he certainly deserved to be in a higher tier than he is.

He occasionally being a clown prince with poor work ethic cost him...
Meh he deserved to be where he is, lost to so many mugs and just didn’t care at multiple years worth of Slams imo. But when he was good he was GOAT.

Of course, his upbringing was a lot more similar to Agassi’s than is publicized; and it can be hard to be enthusiastic for the sport after so many injuries…
 

Sunny014

Legend
He probably earned being in the Hall of Fame just based on the 2000 US Open (especially crushing Sampras in the final) and the 2005 semi (especially outlasting Roger in an amazing semi) alone. He had other good moments, but not what one would expect.
Meh he deserved to be where he is, lost to so many mugs and just didn’t care at multiple years worth of Slams imo. But when he was good he was GOAT.

Of course, his upbringing was a lot more similar to Agassi’s than is publicized; and it can be hard to be enthusiastic for the sport after so many injuries…
A full motivated Safin born in the house of Srdjan Djokovic as Novak's older brother would go on to win 6-8 slams
Upbringing matters....
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
So you have like 2 matches for Safin going for you where he played outrageous tennis. But over a 5 year period tell me who is gonna have a better career and make more impact on the field Safin or Murray ? It's an easy choice I think. And in the end, in my view showing who the better player is. Like I said this is no boxing context like Wilder vs Fury.

Because this thread is not about who is gonna have a better career or make more impact. You can have a player who is super consistent making tons of slams QF and SF and have other players who are not very consistent and lose at times in R2 or R1 of a slam but when their game is clicking they win the event. The former player could easily end up losing more often than not against the players in the latter group thus not ending up winning many slams.

That's why Murray has the same amount of slams as Wawrinka and only one more than Safin making far more gazillion QF or SF or whatever. His consistency wouldn't be enough to end up winning that many slams in a period where you always had a player playing at a very high level. If it was against different players or the same one it's irrelevant. Murray is prone to upsets against inconsistent players on a good day like Cilic, Wawrinka, Verdasco, Tsonga, etc. So he wouldn't dominate an era, he would be more successful than other players but doesn't have the game to dominate.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Mostly, yes, I'm including 2007 even if Djoko was there. 2003-2007. 6-8 slams for murray if we are talking about a prime murray 2011-17ish.

So I'm not saying he will win 8 slams, I'm saying 6-8. He will lose some and win some. Not sure how he'd fare against Nadal at Wimbledon, might lose 2007 encounter, but 2006 he can win. At AO, same there, loses a few and will win some. At USO, will lose some and win some. All this will generate in 6-8 slams.

I think he also would be the #1 player in this period due to Nadal not being that great on HC then. Murrays consistency to go deep in slams will generate alot of points, add to that he will win slams aswell, then you have masters wich mostly are on HCs. Murray can also play on clay and has the ability to go deep in every clay masters aswell as FO. Just look at his FO results and compare it to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. Different ball game of ability.

Nadal will get most his points on clay, but too few clay masters compared to HCs.

Just look at his career and what he has done on every surface and how consistent he has been, not just in slams but outside slams. He is a great tennis player who competes with the best on every surface the whole calender year year in year out.
put 11-17 murray in 2003-09:

11 AO murray definitely loses to Agassi of AO 03. might lose to el ayanoui or roddick or pre-semi nalby as well
11 RG obviously doesn't win. loses to ferrero at the very least if not someone else
11 Wim murray collapsed vs nadal after a set. mentally wasn't just ready. loses to roddick or scud
11 USO murray went down tamely to nadal. loses to Roddick or ferrero or agassi or nalby in USO 03.

12 AO murray was pretty good. but he'd still lose to safin of QF/SF or agassi. similar level to nalby of AO 04. he'd need considerable luck to win this one
12 RG murray lost to ferrer. would lose to any good CCer in 04 RG
12 Wim - murray - would be up vs 04 Wim roddick. this would be a dogfight. I'd give slight edge to Roddick, but lets see.
12 USO - murray loses to AGassi of USO 04 - agassi ain't gonna choke like Cilic did vs Murray or be affected by wind as much as berdych/Djokovic were. agassi was not only in better form in 04 USO, but also handled wind better than Murray did, not that Murray handled it badly.

13 AO murray - loses to safin of AO 05
13 RG - murray did not play
13 Wim - murray would beat roddick of Wim 05, but it'd be a close contest with hewitt of Wim 05
13 USO murray was taken out by stan. so he loses to blake/hewitt/agassi of USO 05

forget 14 Murray. he's not winning any slams

15 AO murray - dogfight vs gonzo of AO 07. murray wasn't up for a longer battle. collapsed after 2 sets and half. edge to gonzo.
15 RG murray - obviously loses to nadal of RG 07
15 Wim murray - obviously loses to nadal of Wim 07
15 USO murray - was upset by Anderson, so loses to Roddick or Lopez or davy or djoko. take your pick

16 AO murray - loses to djokovic of AO 08 at the very least. tsonga as well
16 RG murray - loses to nadal of RG 08 duh, loses to djoko as well
16 Wim murray - loses to nadal of Wim 08
16 USO murray - lost to nishikori. was actually significantly better in USO 08. loses to djokovic at the very least, if not roddick or delpo.

17 AO murray - upset by Mischa. not gonna win vs nadal/verdasco of AO 09, lol
17 RG murray - will lose to delpo or soderling of RG 09

the end

so that leaves us with 12 Wim Murray in Wim 04, 13 Wim Murray in Wim 05, 15 AO murray in AO 07 as the realistic chances with a shot at 12 AO murray in AO 04 (depending on luck of draw).

4 is max from what I see. 5 is being pretty generous. 6-8 is a vast over-rating.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
So you have like 2 matches for Safin going for you where he played outrageous tennis. But over a 5 year period tell me who is gonna have a better career and make more impact on the field Safin or Murray ? It's an easy choice I think. And in the end, in my view showing who the better player is. Like I said this is no boxing context like Wilder vs Fury.
safin: 13/24 vs top 10 in slams

2 slam wins, 2 slam finals, multiple other semis
but only 2 matches where he played, well. LOLOL.

murray has a better career than wawarinka, but same # of slams (3) and curiously, same # of top 10 slam wins (21) (murray in 48 matches, stan in 46 matches)
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
0 Slams for sure. Prime Federer never donated Slams to lesser players. You've take it away from him like Safin/Potro did - it's something Murray was never capable of.
 
Top